State Department sought to change Benghazi talking points

From right to left, Eric Nordstrom, the State Department's former regional security officer in Libya, Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, and Mark Thompson, the State Department's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, testify at a House Oversight Committee hearing about last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 8, 2013.

J. Scott Applewhite, Associated Press

Summary

Senior State Department officials pressed for changes in the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used after the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya last September, expressing concerns that Congress might criticize the Obama administration for ignoring warnings of a growing threat in Benghazi.

WASHINGTON — Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails.

The latest disclosures Friday raised new questions about whether the Obama administration tried to play down any terrorist factor in the attack on a diplomatic compound just weeks before the November presidential election. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed when insurgents struck the U.S. mission in two nighttime attacks.

The White House has insisted that it made only a "stylistic" change to the intelligence agency talking points from which Rice suggested on five Sunday talk shows that demonstrations over an anti-Islamic video devolved into the Benghazi attack.

Numerous agencies had engaged in an email discussion about the talking points that would be provided to members of Congress and to Rice for their public comments. In one email, then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland worried about the effect of openly discussing earlier warnings about the dangers of Islamic extremists in Benghazi.

Nuland's email said such revelations "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to (central intelligence) agency warnings," according to a congressional official who reviewed the 100 pages of emails.

The final talking points that weekend reflected the work of several government agencies — CIA, FBI, State Department, the office of the Director of National Intelligence — apparently determined to cast themselves in the best light as the investigation was just getting underway.

A scathing independent report in December found that "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" of the State Department meant that security was "inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

Eight months after the attack, the long-running and bitter dispute between the Obama administration and congressional Republicans on the subject shows no sign of abating. The GOP argues that the administration deliberately tried to mislead Congress and the American people. The White House insists that Republicans are trying to politicize the issue.

"There's an ongoing effort to make something political out of this," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday of the disclosure of the emails, which the administration had provided to lawmakers. "The problem with that effort is that it's never been clear what it is they think they're accusing the administration of doing."

Republicans have complained that the administration was trying to conceal that the attack was the work of terrorists and not a protest over an anti-Islamic film that got out of hand. Such revelations just before the election perhaps could have undercut President Barack Obama's record on fighting terrorism, including the killing of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, one of his re-election strengths.

The State Department emails and other internal administration deliberations were summarized last month in an interim investigative report by Republicans on five House committees. New details about political concerns and the names of the administration officials who wrote the emails concerning the talking points emerged on Friday.

Following Capitol Hill briefings in the days after the attack, members of Congress asked the CIA for talking points to explain the assault, and the CIA under the direction of David Petraeus put together an assessment.

It said Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida took part in the attack, cited reports linking the attack to the group Ansar al-Sharia, mentioned the experience of Libyan fighters and referred to previous warnings of threats in Benghazi.

Popular Comments

* During the Romney debate-- BO states-"there is
no cover up, and to bring it up is offensive".* Taxes will not go up a
single dime in any form.* I will cut the deficit in half in three
years.*
More..

2:23 p.m. May 10, 2013

Top comment

Tators

Hyrum, UT

The longer Obama is in office, the more his and his administration's
shanagans are exposed. He is guilty of deceit even worse than any of the things
he accused Republicans of while he was a senator. Hypocrisy... pure and simple.
He initially
More..

2:53 p.m. May 10, 2013

Top comment

Say No to BO

Mapleton, UT

Fun and games in DC, just before the election.Obama's narrative was
that AlQueda was all but eliminated and that the world loved his version of the
USA. So tolerant and accepting of Islam.The administration sought to
downplay the
More..